# Summary of Research Articles ### Spatial Thinking About Maps report from Nat Geogr summarizing research in spatial thinking. [LINK](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/spatial-thinking-about-maps/). Focuses on grades pre-K ### Differential developmental trajectories for egocentric, environmental and intrinsic frames of reference in spatial memory Nardini, Burgess, Breckenridge, Atkinson, Cognition 101(1):153-172, 2006. * Studied development of spatial frames of reference in children age 3-6. * Task: retrieve hidden toys from an array of identical containers bordered by landmarks; 4 conditions * Three elements: the child, the array of containers, and the room. They always had the toy in the same relative container but varied position of child and containers in the room. * Additive performance if consistent with body and/or room, already at 3yo. * Room effect (allocentric) much stronger than body effect (egocentric). * Viewpoint-independent recall based only on the array and bordering landmarks emerged at 5yo. (Object-referenced or intrinsic). * Conclusion: core components of adult spatial competence, including parallel egocentric and non-egocentric representations of space, are present as early as 3 yo. Supplemented by later-developing object-referenced representations. ### Spatial Cognition and the Brain [Neil Burgess, Annals of the NYAS, 2008. ](https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1196/annals.1440.002) Review. * Spatial memory is supported by multiple parallel representations (incl egocentric, allocentric); those are updated to accommodate self-motion. * There is a mechanistic neural-level model of some aspects. * Hippocampus & medial temporal lobe --> allocentric * parietal lobe --> egocentric * retrosplenial cortex & parieto-occipital sulcus --> interaction between the representations * hippocampal system processes boundaries with incidental learning. * striatal systems process local landmarks with associative reinforcement. ### Beyond Core Knowledge: Natural Geometry E Spelke, Sang Ah Lee, Veronique Izard, Cognitive Science, 2010. * at least 2 distinct, evolutionarily ancient, core cognitive systems reprsent shapes of large-scale, navigable layouts and of small-scale, movable forms and objectds. * Each system applies to some perceptible arrays and captures some of the 3 fundamental Euclidean relationships of distance, angle and direction. * Like natural number, Euclidean geometry may be constructed through the productive combination of representations from these core systems, through the use of uniquely human symbolic systems. Core geometry for navigation * Humans and other animals represent both distances and directional relationships. * Capacity to reorient by the shape of the borders of the environment found in humans, ants, and other animals. * We can reorient by wall geometry, but not lines on the floor or object shapes. Likely explanation: in natural environments, objects and small patterns repeat a lot; there is a lot of information to rpocess. * Children do not reorient by angle; only distance and direction. * In small pictures and objects, in contrast, we detect angle and length relationships but not directional relationships (until adolescence) ... Geometric maps * "When do children first become able to use line drawings, providing purely geometric information about the spatial layout, to guide their navigation through that layout? By 4 years of age, remarkably, children have been shown to accomplish this task in two series of experiments." ### Landmark-based spatial navigation across the human lifespan [Becu et al, eLife, 2023](https://elifesciences.org/articles/81318) * children and aged navigators have difficulties in using landmarks for navigation * introducing a geometric polarization of space restores allocentric navigation ability Geometric polarization means ### Relations between spatial skills and math performance in elementary school children: A longitudinal investigation. Geer et al, Developmental Psychology 55(3):637-652, 2019 Measured 2 spatial and one math tasks. ## Charting the development of cognitive mapping Nazareth et al, J of Exp'l Child Psychology 170:86-106, 2018 * Children reach adult-levels of navigation proficiency at 12 yo * Judgments of direction within routes improve earlier than judgments between routes. * Like adults, children can be classified in three categories of navigators * imprecise navigators * non-integrators (represent routes more accurately but are imprecise in relating two rotues) * integrators (who relate the two routes and thus form cognitive maps) * Perspective-taking skills are an important predictor of improvement in navigation ## Large-scale assessment of human navigation ability across the lifespan van der Ham et al, Scientific Reports 10:3299, 2020 A battery of tasks applied across ages. ## Navigating space and the developing mind Adrienn Reka Nemeth et al, Front. Psychol. 16, 2025 Review of ontogenesis of spatial representations. Neuronal represenattions of space. Egocentric vs allocentric reference frames; path inetgration. ### Social studies in improving students' map skills: Teachers' opinions Nazli Gokce, Anadolu University. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 15(5):1345-1362, 2015. [Link](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1101287.pdf). * Survey of teachers - semi-structured interviews with Social Studies teachers. * Results * Map skills are weak * Disagreement as to effectiveness of Turkey's Social Studies Course Instructional Program for these skills * Opporutnities to practice and improve map skills are limited * There are problems relating to the curriculum, the students and the physical infrastructure of schools * Suggestions - there are many * teaching/learning process * Teach on maps * Different exercises appealing to every student * game-like; puzzles, crosswords, jigsaws * Maps without names * Competitions * students' daily lives - realte * Current events and news * Computer technology * Use maps in different areas of study * School trips where maps are functionally useful * Mat teachers - scale problems * Peer learning * Visual arts teachers involved * Students * start as early as possible * Developmentally appropriate; present gradually * Curriculum * Include actviities about countries throughout the world and this country's regions * Give teachers freedom and flexibility * Teachers * Able to use 3D visuals, animations, maps * Good command of field knowledge * Collaborate with families * Know GIS and be able to prepare maps * Attitude * Physical infrastructure * Display maps * Families * Parents involved ### The use of mental maps in youth research: Some evidence from research exploring young people's awareness of and attachment to place Richard J. White and Anne E. Green, from Innovations in Youth Research, edited by Sue Heath, Charlie Walker, pp. 58-76 *I did not have full access to this article through Google Books. Some pages wre missing.* Traditional approaches to research: questionnaires, interviews and focus groups. New approaches: use young people's written, oral and visual skills. Examples of new approaches: * Ross 2007: mapwork exercises, self-directed photography, writings, drawings and commentaries * Young and Barratt 2001: mental maps, thematic and non-thematic drawings, photo diaries and daily time lines * Dennis 2006: qualitative applications of GIS The authors argue that mental mapping should be a tool in youth research around urban spaces. #### What is a mental map * Used interchangeably with cognitive map (Murray and Spencer 1979; Soini 2001 * "A marriabe between spatial and environmental cognition" Kitchen 1994 * "Mental constructs that were seen as intervening between geographical settings and human action * Soini 2001: distinguish from concept mapping: "mental mapping always has spatial connections, whereas concept mapping is purely related to conceptual structures and processing of landscape" * Downs and Stea 1977: cognitive map is "the world as some person believes it to be" with distortions highly likely. Techniques * Drawing mental or cognitive maps of particular spaces and places goes back to the 1960s and 1970s (various references) * Story-telling process of teenagers, Leonard 2006 * Spatial imaginings; mobility; spatial horizons. Reay and Lucey 2000, inner city council estates. "the use of mental mapping is still under-used in the broader design, conduct and analysis of social-science research generally, including in research focused on young people." Useful for understanding subjective relationships people have toward the objective spatial world they inhabit, and which shape their behavior. Could inform policy and practice. Could open up yotuh participation in political processes. Limitations of mental maps. Gillespie 2010 - difficulty of portraying 3D landscape in 2D. Not just sketcher's spatial understanding but also the physical and creative process of drawing the mental map. Pocock 1979 points out the complexity: can only address items that are mappable; various biases introduced by the instructions and tools. #### The research project: Attachment to place This chapter focuses on the use of mental maps in a specific recent UK-based research project. Context: interest in the intersections of people and place, where there is economic deprivation and social exclusion. The study worked with people in 3 low-income areas in Hull, Wolverhampton and Walsall. There was an initial questionnaire about conomi position, future intentions, patterns of mobility, links to and attitudes toward the local area, job search an dsources of information, job locations, employment aspirations. They did focus groups, where the mental mapping exercise was done. 4-8 respondents. subjective perceptions of young people toward neighborhoods and wider urban environment. A nice description of how the focus group was run is included in this chapter. After an initial conversation, they did the mental map exercise. Instructions stressed content over artistic ability. Started with specific instructions to put their school, place of work, services, and landmarks - this was teh "skeleton phase" (Lynch 1960) of drawing a mental map. Then asked to distinguish areas they knew well; identify areas they felt were unsafe. This is the second phase of drawing a mental map (Lynch 1960): linking memories with information and description. Then there was group discussion and comparison of the maps. Reay and Lucey 2000, and Massey 1993: there is no "single sense of place that everyone shares". Many participants rarely, if ever, left the local area, and had little awareness of other places. See a general direction with an arrow toward "town". "The consequence of having a limited spatial awareness given the focus of the research was obvious, and clearly demonstrated that in the context of access to employment, training, education and transport, geography matters... Spatial awareness has a central role in informing what opportunities young people see, or choose to see, as relevant and available to them. Thus those who have a limited spatial awareness will also have a narrower subset of opportunities available to them. Other young people 'transcend' space and embrace a much broader range of potential opportunities that were perceived to be of relevance to them." One participant had an extensive geographic range and commented that he'd gained knowledge of the city through traveling to participate in sports in different areas. #### Identity * strong place attachment * hostility toward other areas, in some cases. See Kintrea 2008 for territorial behavior among young people. * They did not see much difference by gender, except males had more orientation around sports facilities. #### References * James 1990 * Matthews and Limb 1999 * Young and Barrett 2001 * Ross 2007 * Reay and Lucy 2000. "Experiences of places and spaces are structured in all sorts of ways by broader social power relations, which include race, class and age as well as gender." * Qualitative GIS - Cope and Elwood 2009 * Participatory GIS - Cinderby 2010 ### Boardman, 1989. The Development of Graphicacy: Children's Understanding of Maps This review of literature was published by The Geographical Association. * Primary school children can draw maps of their home environment * Young children can identify features on aerial photographs and large scale maps of familiar areas * Contour maps are difficult for secondary school pupils * Boys perform better than girls on map drawing and map reading tasks. This correlates with boys being allowed to explore an area further from home and girls being kept inside with domestic tasks. * Orienteering is proposed as a way to develop map reading skills. #### Hart 1979: spatial ranges and model placement Hart interviewed children aged 6-11 and categorized the extent of their everyday movement into "free range" (no permission needed), "range with permission", and "range with older children". He provided models and toys to represent places and asked the child to lay them out on a large sheet of paper. He traced around them and wrote the names provided by the children. He found correlations between the accuracy and extent, and the limits of their ranges, as well as their age. *I'm curious to know the details of when the child identified a model with an object; whether he looked at indoor spaces; details of the analysis. How many kids?* #### Matthews 1984 and Matthew 1985: free-recall sketch maps All 172 children ages 6-11 in one school were asked to draw (1) a map of the area around their home, and (2) their journey from home to school. They showed more info as the grew older. Learned about different environments in different ways; not a straightforward progression of ability with age. 253 children aged 6 and 7. A sense of place had emerged by the time they started school. Many showed place relationships in the area around their homes and could draw their routes from home to school. *The summary language here is a bit vague.* #### Murray and Spencer 1979: the problem of translation of mental map to paper "Children may know far more about their spatial environment than they are actually able to draw on paper." It can be helpful to use an aerial photograph or large scale plan. Matthews 1984b: used three approaches, one in each school (sized 155, 172, 174): * free sketching * a 1:4087 aerial photo including the school, home of each child. Put a sheet of tracing paper over it to record the features identified by the children. * Did the same with an Ordnance Survey plan of the area at 1:1250. Home and school were pointed out by the interviewer to initiate the task; then recorded all features correctly identified by the children. Results * Kids provided more info with aid of map or photo. By age of 11 described on average > 20 elements. * Journey to school task: more detail in free-recall mapping. * More detail in area around their home than in the journey to school. Suggested effect of active exploration vs passive and restricted experience. *Were these kids all walking to school, or did any of them take car etc?* #### Blades & Spencer 1986: map use in young children "For young children there is a quite large step from identifying features on a map to actually reading and using a map." * Age 4-6; use scale model of room to locate treasure in the actual room. Also, show were they are in the room. Most could do it. * Walk routes on a 1:50 scale plan of playground. Many could do this. * Find way through simple maze with 1:00 scale plan. Many could do this. #### Walker 1980: map reading and using * 100 children aged 5-9, 10b & 10g from each age. * Asked to try 3 tests of relative length, orientation and symbolization. 4th outdoor test: use a large-scale plan to follow a route leading to treasure. * Use of symbols understood by most 6 yos * Orientation and relative length established by age 8 in most kids. * Suggested that map using tasks similar to "find the treasure" can be useful in developing young children's map understanding #### Gerber 1981; Gerber & Wilson 1979: number of map elements * Gerber 1981: young children have more trouble with several simultaneous elements as opposed to 1 * Gerber & Wilson 1979: Use familiar school environment before introduction to abstract reference systems. *I think this speaks to us not using the compass.* #### Boardman 1982: reading contours * 336 pupils who had completed map reading courses including contours. 166 were 11-12 yo. 170 were 13-14 yo. * Test based on OS map extract. * Shade all land above 91m in height. Only 36% of younger and 75% of older kids could do it. Errors were interesting - some had trouble where there were not numbers on the contours. Others had picket fence error. Some only shaded one countour interval. * Circle the end of a short line that is higher. Around 65% 1st year and 80% 2nd year. * Decide which of the 3 lines lay on the steepest slope - less than half could do this. * Estimate height of land at 3 points. Could not do this well in between contour lines. *The questions are very "mathematical" - I wonder if there is a way to test (and teach) visualization from contour maps in a different way.* #### Sandford 1979: 3 stages of visualization of landscape 1. Contour spacing (close or wide), or forming circles or parallel lines 2. Mental interpolation of space between contours; see across instead of along contours --> steep and gentle slopes; between valleys and spurs 3. Patterns like plateau or moorland Conceptual development is greatly helped by letting pupils make their own 3D relief models from contours. #### Gender-related differences Haven't summarized the individual research yet - to be done - but generally: girls worse than boys; related, perhaps, to their different ranges.